Legal Opinion · Dissent

Caitlin Ahearn v. Hyundai Motor America

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 23, 2018No. 15-56014, 15-56025, 15-56059, 15-56061, 15-56064, 15-56067Published

1DissentNguyen, Circuit Judge

“Economic reality dictates” that this consumer lawsuit “proceed as a class action or not at all.”’ Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 161, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974). By championing the cause of a handful of objectors and their attorneys (who were denied fees below) to decertify the class, the majority deprives thousands of consumers of any chance to recover what is, conservatively speaking, a more than $159 million settlement.1 In doing so, the majority relies on arguments never raised by the objectors, contravenes precedent, and disregards reasonable factual findings…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  3. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. BouaphakeoSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  4. Blackie v. BarrackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  5. Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API